Governor Charlie Baker (R, MA) is expected to sign a bill that lets judges seize weapons from people if they deem them a threat to themselves or others.
At first gaze it seems reasonable
A judge needs to work with medical professionals. It should be a medical professional (or maybe more than 1). Judges should not alone have that power.
Unconstitutional. These people should fire back if someone tries to grab them.
The judges can only take the weapons if they are considered a threat to safety.
My point stands.
I'd like to know what standards are in place...what actions justify removing ownership?
For how long?
Who decides removal is warranted?
What is the process for returning ownership?
Too many times rights are violated unfairly and arbitrarily...what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse?
Logical, unlike the wackos, sky is falling, ban all weapons idiots.
I would prefer further information. Simply taking someone's current weapons stock falls far short of what is needed if they are a verifiable threat.
As (Republican) governors go, I like Charlie.